Witnessed a Road Rage incident - argument was interesting...

[405dogvan]

I was stuck behind a car as the driver had a barney with a cyclist last night - their argument was actually interesting and I thought I'd bring-it-up here to see what you lot think.

I'd only just joined the road so I missed most of the fun-and-games - it seems the car/cyclists (there were actually 3 but only 1 was arguing) had been overtaking each other for the previous few miles at traffic lights/crossings/roundabouts etc.

The cyclist rode around and hit the guy's window - the following argument centered on the guy not giving the cyclist enough space.

The guy's response was interesting.

"You've rode up the inside of me at least 4 times in moving traffic and at least twice at lights, which you ignored and rode through at red - how come when I get too close it's bad but you can get as close as you like when it suits you??"

I thought he had a point - cyclists don't like cars getting close (for good reason) but will happily weave/undertake cars taking exactly the same risk, in most cases just making the driver have to pass them AGAIN (and in most cases, breaking the law of course)

The red light ignoring is just the usual bullst of course, but I thought the driver had a fair point, the cyclist was really just another road user DESPERATE to be ahead of everyone else??

[405dogvan]

Fonzey said:

This isn't to say cyclists don't have as much right to use the road as car drivers, but I don't understand why they filter through to the front of a queue as they just become a blockage again...

The argument I've heard in the past is "what's the point of using a bike if you don't take advantage of it's ability to pass other traffic" - which is fine in the city where you're likely making progress overall, fine for motorbikes who can keep ahead of me but less fine for a cyclist you're going to overtake instantly...

I get teed-off by cyclists who sit in the inside/ahead of me at lights when I have a vehicle outside me also. What am I supposed to do exactly?

[405dogvan]

xRIEx said:

405dogvan said:

I thought he had a point - cyclists don't like cars getting close (for good reason) but will happily weave/undertake cars taking exactly the same risk, in most cases just making the driver have to pass them AGAIN (and in most cases, breaking the law of course)

Two reasons, as I see it:
1. a car moving at 20mph has massive amounts more kinetic energy than a cycle and cyclist moving at 20mph and therefore has the potential to do massive amounts more damage.
2. Control: a cyclist moving through stationary traffic is in control of the separation (and as above, at massively reduced risk); a cyclist being passed by a car has much less control over the separation (and is at greater risk).

Firstly, I completely agree with pretty-much everything you wrote (I chopped a bit off for clarity but read it all) - thing is tho, I do see cyclists weaving dangerously in moving traffic and yet complaining of being overtaken by cars in situations not really any riskier.

Yes, it's a control thing - did they actually even SEE me is the thought you have (I've spent enough time on cycles and bikes to know that feeling) but there IS a point to be made here

The fact you're taking the bigger risk doesn't make it fairer to the driver who's got to have eyes in the back of his head to see you/know where you are

The fact might hurt you more if a car knocks you over doesn't mean the driver isn't going to feel REALLY bad for something which maybe wasn't even their fault - and there's the chance in avoiding you they'll hit someone else too.

Example: I once passed through a narrow gap in town centre traffic only to see a pedestrian step-out RIGHT in-front on me/ Before I could react I heard an awful noise - a crunching bang - in my mind I'd just run someone down!!

By the time I'd stopped, gotten out, gone back to see I'd pictured someone with their leg hanging-off or even dying - when I arrived, the sound transpired to be a shopping bag full of tins dragging along the side of the car - no-one otherwise injured.

Absolutely not my fault - I still hear that noise sometimes, god knows what it's like to have actually harmed someone!!

[405dogvan]

Also - holding a stationary car for support is like standing on a floating brick to avoid drowning surely? ;0

[405dogvan]

RobM77 said:

Surely the two situations are entirely different? If a car cuts a cyclist close and forces the cyclist through a pot hole that would cause them to crash, or clips them etc, the cyclist could be seriously injured or killed. If, on the other hand, a car is stationary or crawling and a cyclist gets a bit close filtering, the outcome isn't reversed - ie there's no way the car driver can get injured, in fact it'd again by the cyclist who gets injured. I'm not justifying cyclists riding like tits (or car drivers, or any road user), but the argument of 'one rule for you, one rule for me' is completely invalid because of the gross imbalance of risk.

Not entirely that simple, is it.

Cyclists on an open road know that the driver only has them to worry about

Cyclists in traffic need to remember that every driver is looking for roadsigns, lane markings, traffic lights, upto 8 vehicles around them and MAYBE that cyclist who's weaving through that lot.

I've lost count of the times in traffic I've noticed a cyclist and then lost them and thought "where's the fker gone?". Could be in a blind spot, could be they're in another lane, could have baled to the pavement or COULD have their head under my rear wheel - hmmmmmm

Someone mentioned courtesy and that's the key here - everyone should use their brain a bit. Don't overtake someone who'll just have to overtake you back 10 seconds later (imagine if cars did that) - give people space and expect space to be given.

Oh - and if you NEED to use a car to stay upright, you've put your bike somewhere there wasn't enough space for it and you're a berk.